Since 9/11 one thing we have heard Bush and others say is that we had to go to war in places like Iraq and Afghanistan (or more accurately had to stay there) was to “liberate Muslim women”. It’s right up there in stupidity with trying to create a democracy in the Muslim world as a reason why we have to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I supported getting rid of the Taliban and Saddam (and still do), the fact of the matter is that the US shouldn’t be in the business of democracy building in the Muslim world (at least not without some form of de-Islamification) or trying to liberate Muslim women.

The Shah of Iran came the closest to creating a modern state in a Muslim country. (Whether it would end up democratic by any standard is a debate that is irrelevant for the purposes of this blog entry.) Since Iran retains a great deal of its pre-Islamic Persian heritage (something that is not Islamic), the Shah had a better shot than anyone, anywhere in the Muslim world of doing this, yet he failed spectalularly. One of the reasons why he failed was opposition by women.

Most analysis of the Shah and what he tried to do says that he was on the side of women’s rights. The Shah claimed so himself similar to how Bush and other Neocons claim to be fighting to liberate Islamic women. While what the Shah was doing did technically increase women’s political freedom, this doesn’t tell the whole story. The Shah vs. Khomeni with respect to women is framed as women’s rights vs. patriarchy. This is not correct because Islam is not patriarchal in the sense that we in the West think of patriarchy (i.e. monogamy, etc.) Islam is institutionalized hypergamy through limited polygamy. In Islam a man can have up to four wives. (In some places Muslim men can have even more wives.) This means that it is possible that up to 75% of men could never get a wife under Islam (assuming a male to female ratio of close to 1:1). Whiskey points out that 12% of Muslim marriages are polygamous while in Saudi Arabia its as high as 30%. This allows women to share an “alpha” male and explains why so many Iranian women were opposed to the Shah’s banning of the chador. Intentionally or unintentionally the Shah’s plans to make a modern state were on the path of taking on the institutionalized hypergamy through limited polygamy of Islam one way or another. This would mean that women would lose the ability to share “alpha” men that Islam granted them. (This is in addition to the fact that the chador like the burka denigrates men.)

Even knowing this why were Iranian women so against the Shah because wasn’t he granting them increased political freedom? The Shah was doing that, but outside of a handful of women, women aren’t interested in political freedom. I was reading another MRA blog recently and someone pointed out how once the government/elites were done taking all freedom away from men, they would start taking away the freedom of women. Someone else correctly pointed out that women aren’t going to notice or care that the government/elites are taking away their freedom. Whether its in Iran or the West, outside of a handful of women, women aren’t interested in freedom.

This gets us to why wars to “liberate Muslim women” and create democratic states in the Muslim world are pointless. Muslim women like other women aren’t going to care that you are fighting a war for their political freedom since they aren’t interested. Take these women plus the men who aren’t interested in freedom due to Islam and there is no way a free and democratic state could ever be created in the Muslim world (without de-Islamifying the country to create enough men who are interested in political freedom).

Van Jones was part of what has been called to the blue-green alliance, really the blue collar-green alliance, an attempt to put together big labor with environmentalists. For Van Jones that only means politically correct labor since he has talked about “making places like West Oakland the center of the green economy” and “creating a pipeline from prisons to the green economy”. This is not to create green (or any other kind of) energy, but along with cap and trade tax to make a government controlled cartel over energy.

There is an energy revolution coming, but guys like Van Jones want to strangle it before it begins. For example, Obama cut funding to tidal energy research when its on the verge of becoming a usable form of energy generation (particularly in the Pacific Northwest). In the 90s, Clinton cut the funding down to nothing for the Integral Fast Reactor, nuclear reactor technology that would have greatly reduced the problem of nuclear waste. If Clinton and Obama really are interested in creating green energy, then why did they cut funding to two things that would have done just that? The answer is that they aren’t interested in green energy but making everyone more impoverished by increasing the price of energy, making people more dependent on government. New energy technologies would also primarily benefit (white and Asian) men since they would get the jobs from these technologies. As we now know from Van Jones, this is unacceptable to him and guys like Clinton and Obama.

Guys like Van Jones, Clinton, and Obama have to strangle technological development to force people to be dependent on government. This means strangling development in energy technologies since without energy technological development is slowed or stalled. This is also very anti-male as (white and Asian) men are the leading developers of new technologies. This is why Van Jones has to try to force government controlled “green energy” using (former) prisoners and other politically correct groups because otherwise it would benefit (white and Asian) men.

When you go out, you always make sure that your house’s door is closed and so are the windows. This preventive measures are to avoid letting thieves in. Many times you have heard ‘Do not invite thieves by leaving your window open’ of if you are going to park your car on the street ‘Do not encourage thieves by leaving your valuables insight in your car’ as this will most certainly attract thieves to your car, and the outcome of that is always not something you wish to deal with as it involves a loss in property and a loss in wealth and a shake to your emotions and nerves.

Such is the case with men! Women have to protect themselves so that men do not steal their bodies or their mind or their sharaf (Honour).

Women wear hijab because, as my father said, hijab is a shield (for French speaking sisters he said “carapace”). I said “yes”, then he said “a shield from men” and I said that this is exactly the reason behind the hijab.

This is really a long winded way for Muslims to say “all men are rapists”. This also says that women are more important than men and that men are disposable, both of which feminists believe. There are even better versions of this such as this excerpt from this link:

For still other women, however, such as the Egyptian thinker Safinaz Kazim, the hijab is to be reconstrued as a quasi-feminist statement. A woman who exposes her charms in public is vulnerable to what might be described as ‘visual theft’, so that men unknown to her can enjoy her visually without her consent. By covering herself, she regains her ability to present herself as a physical being only to her family and sorority. This view of hijab, as a kind of moral raincoat particularly useful under the inclement climate of modernity, allows a vision of Islamic woman as liberated, not from tradition and meaning, but from ostentation and from subjection to random visual rape by men.

Here we have use of the term “visual rape” just like a feminist. What this shows is that both Islam and feminism regard men as evil beings intent on sexually defiling “pure” women. Also, both feminism and Islam are about making it so men can’t look at women and mind control. Both groups are trying to force men to turn their “gaze” away from women and not have certain thoughts in this case sexual thoughts. Muslims do it through the burka and the hijab. Feminists use sexual harassment laws and regulations.

Indeed, many Muslim women I spoke with did not feel at all subjugated by the chador or the headscarf. On the contrary, they felt liberated from what they experienced as the intrusive, commodifying, basely sexualising Western gaze. Many women said something like this: “When I wear Western clothes, men stare at me, objectify me, or I am always measuring myself against the standards of models in magazines, which are hard to live up to – and even harder as you get older, not to mention how tiring it can be to be on display all the time.

Take out the references to Allah and everything the Muslims said about men, the hijab, and the burka sounds just like feminists such as Naomi Wolf. It’s really that simple.

The justification for the idea of “blowback” is something the US or the West did in the past to somebody. In many cases it didn’t happen like the advocates of “blowback” describe, or the issues are more complicated than they are willing to admit. Notice the similarities to this idea and to feminists (and other women) who claim that feminism was the result of men oppressing women or some other nonsense. Or better yet compare “blowback” to the idea that men deserve to be oppressed now since women were supposedly oppressed a long time ago.

In both cases, the historical knowledge of the advocates of these positions is on shaky ground. In both cases, its justifications for bad if not psychotic behavior. Its worse with the feminists since they are outright lying most of the time and are using logical fallacies of the apex fallacy and the frontman fallacy. The idea that women were ever oppressed is an outright myth. At least the “blowback” advocates have some historical basis for their claims unlike the feminists. Regardless, its also about the justification of bad behavior in the present not about actual history.

Recently, I found this Newsweek article about how any Venezuelan with a brain and the means has been leaving because of Chavez (via Tom Barnett). It’s the same as whenever the Alliance takes over a country. How many Iranians are the US or Canada or elsewhere because they fled the Islamic Revolution? Answer: Many. As the article points out the same thing is happening in Chavezist states like Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua. It’s so bad that one third of all Bolivians under 30 are planning on emigrating. (That’s almost triple the amount ten years ago.) That’s a damming statistic.

Honduras has chosen a different path. This link explains what really happened. Instead of having tens of thousands of their best people leave, the Honduran army did the right and legal thing under Honduran law, get rid of Zelaya. Democracy is only important as it serves freedom and the rule of law. When democracy comes into conflict with those things, freedom and the rule of law must be put first. That’s what the Honduran army did.

It’s no surprise that Obama is yammering on about letting Zelaya back into Honduras. Like the rest of the Alliance, Obama is against freedom and the rule of law. Obama wants the ability to rewrite contracts like which has been done with GM and Chrysler just like Chavez does in Venezuela. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. All of the Alliance hates freedom and the rule of law. This is why in pro-feminist divorce courts basic Constitutional guarantees such as the idea of innocent until proven guilty do not exist.

In the US the political party most associated with the Alliance is the Democrat Party. Naturally, when many men start looking for a political party to fight the Alliance (or one its groups such as feminism), they start with the Republican Party. However, any man with a brain will realize that the Republican Party doesn’t represent men despite the fact that representing men will guarantee a permanent majority for the next 50 years. The only reason the Republican Party has been as successful as it has until now can be best described by this part of a comment from the Power Line blog:

I’m a former academic who spent most of his life more-or-less non-political and voted Democratic because that’s what academics did. In my later years I discovered that, as a “heterosexual white male” (i.e., nothing more than the markers which identified me with a specific political interest group), the Democratic party was my enemy. So I’ve been voting Republican for the last 15 years.

None of which makes me a “conservative’ if by that label one refers to a specific set of political dogmas, and consequently nothing has me turning the page faster than a bunch of conservatives arguing over what constitutes the true (“true”) conservative doctrine.

What I am, in fact is an anti-liberal, and there’s a lot of us out there. We don’t particularly want Republicans in positions of political power, but we certainly don’t want liberals there. And if voting Republican will assure that, then so be it.

This was true in Iran itself as well. In 1979 in Iran, women marched in chadors to protest the Shah. (The Shah had made the chador illegal.) The chador is similar to a burka. Remember what I said about burkas being similar to sexual harrasment law suits. The same applies to the chador.

The links go even deeper than that. This video goes into more:

To this day there is no feminist opposition to Islam even though it seems logical. That’s because both feminism and Islam are part of the Alliance. It’s important to remember that the Alliance is not a coherent entity. The Alliance exists simply for the purpose of trying to make the consitutent groups stronger than they would be by themselves. Many parts of the Alliance only have their enemies in common, such as straight white men. In the case of the Iranian Revolution, this enemy was the Shah.

What happens when the Alliances’ enemies such as straight white men are defeated? Various parts of the Alliance will then turn on each other. This is what happened in Iran. As soon as the Shah was gone Khomeini turned on his allies since he no longer needed them. (It could have ended up going the opposite way since every part of the Alliance is eagerly waiting for the day they can turn on the other parts of the Alliance and take over.) Of course, the rest of the Alliance has not learned this lesson. If the Alliance were to truly win, then Islam would most likely end up the winner since Islam has numbers on its side.

What this means is that the future will like Iran under the Islamic Republic if the Alliance is victorius. Many Iranian-Americans like to say about the Islamic Republic, “they promised us Heaven, but delivered Hell.” It’s the same for the rest of the Alliance. They promise Heaven, but will deliver Hell if they win.

Groups like the Klu Klux Klan and political parties like the British National Party are referred to as “right wing” groups and parties. This is not the case. In fact, they fit in well with the Alliance.

1. The shooting at the Holocaust Museum yesterday demonstrates yet again that, contrary to the imaginings of libelbloggers, real white supremacist neo-Nazis are not pro-Israel, but rather hate Jews (as well as Christianity).

2. The Aryan Nations has stated: “Islam is our ally, and the 1500 cults all claiming to be ‘Christian’ are our opposition.” (It’s important to remember that real Neo-Nazis and the like are not Christian nor do they claim to be Christian. They are Pagan revivalists.)

3. White supremacist David Duke has traveled to Syria to express his support for the jihad against Israel. (Another fact about David Duke: Several years ago David Duke tried running for office as a Republican. He failed. Before that he tried running as a Democrat twice. He did better as a Democrat.)

The reasons why these facts are important is that the politics of the KKK, Neo-Nazis, etc. is SOCIALIST but with racism. Even the term Nazi tell us this since it is short for National SOCIALISM. For all intents are purposes anti-semitism now is all leftist.

What does this have to do with feminism? For that I am going to go to Whiskey who wrote on the Belmont Club (both blogs I highly recommend) here:

I’m not convinced that the Left is out of the mainstream. Certainly it’s policies of mass immigration, destruction of the middle class, heavy government spending, find a lot of supporters.

At least in the short term, certain groups win. A lot. From the Left. Chief among them, women. Who benefit from social spending, which both props up single motherhood (no messy personal choices) AND female employment (most government social workers and education workers and health workers are women). Indeed the desire for preferences makes female workers advantaged and outside competition with White Male peers….

The long run DOES happen, however, and it seems that the long-run costs have come due: personal safety a crisis point even for women in fashionable areas, lack of ability to pay for increased female-centric government employment, Muslim political figures threatening the spoils politics by taking more than their “fair share” of the goodies.

I believe Leftism in the West was built on nothing more complicated than gender based spoils politics, in explicit alliances against the out of the native White male (who lacked family connections). Leftism going out of favor is nothing more complicated than previously junior partners (mostly the Muslims) taking most of the pie away from White Women.

White women retain their innate hostility towards native White men, AND the system (free market capitalism) that rewards high risk preferences (among White men). No one in Europe who is White and Female is likely to have a strong appetite for free market risk, since the winners will be mostly White Men, not White Women.

The BNP and parties LIKE IT that combine socialist risk-leveling, AND Nationalism (benefiting White Women) seem poised to pick up the most votes in long-term trends.

IF Leftist internationalism is failing, it’s failing because it’s core, White Women, are getting shafted in the spoils divisions.

While I would like to see some hard numbers documenting these ideas, it does explain the rise of the BNP and other faux-right political parties and how its connects to feminism. One of the problems with the Alliance is that the weaker links such as the feminism-Islam link are subject to stress. In the end everyone in the Alliance is in the Alliance because its their only way to power, but as soon as they really get it or think one of the other parts will, they will stab the other members in the back. (I will go into this in more detail in Part 3: The Iranian Revolution Model.)

Connections between the faux-right and feminism also exist as far behavior is concerned. On Dr. Helen’s blog if you scroll down to the end of the comments on this story, there’s a guy, “Pablo” who claimed to see one of his female employees crying and punched out some customer that supposedly caused her to cry. While this “Pablo” is most likely a troll and the story, fake, (after all there would be criminal charges and law suits against “Pablo” if this story really happened), there are hotheads who would do such a thing so it has happened many times somewhere. How is this different than when the KKK would beat up or murder a black guy if a white woman said that he even just looked at her funny? It isn’t. If you think about it, it reads nearly exactly the same.

What we have seen here is that racist socialism is not really opposed to feminism at all.

Feminism is allied with various other movements. As we know feminism is marxist by nature and will naturally ally itself with socialism/communism and (dark green) environmentalism. This is well known. On the other side, it would seem logical to most people that feminism would be against Islam, yet this is not the case. Ask a feminist about the treatment of women in Islamic countries, you will get some BS answer about how its a different culture or its the result of racism. Any person with a brain can tell you that such ideas are BS. The question is why aren’t feminism and Islam at war with each other. In fact Islam and feminism are allied with each other. Not only that but feminism and Islam are allied with several other anti-freedom and anti-civilization movements.

I will be writing several posts about this subject over time detailing various aspects of what I call “The Alliance”. This first post will be an introduction. I know many of you will have questions about this so feel free to reply or email them to me. Chances are most of your questions will be answered in subsequent parts in this series.

With that, what is the Alliance? The Alliance is made up of several types of groups which I will list here:

Socialists/Communists (red) – various socialist and communists political parties, so called “anti-fascist” groups

Fascists and “right wing” racists (brown) – KKK, BNP, Jean Marie Le Pen, Neo-Nazis (note: I put right wing in quotes because groups like the KKK and the British National Party aren’t really right wing, but are called that)

I gave a color to each group since its commonplace to hear about the red-green alliance (the alliance between socialism/communism and environmentalism). Essentially, the Alliance is the red-green-black-brown-pink alliance.

I know some of you reading this will think I’m crazy. After all the KKK and feminists don’t really seem to get along after all. Yes, its true that the brown-pink parts of the Alliance would be far away from each other if a drawing of the links of these groups was done. However, I will be addressing that in a subsequent part in this series. A short answer for now is that the link between them is Islam.

Other links in the alliance are self evident such as the link between feminists, socialists/communists, and environmentalists are self evident. The fact that there are such schools of thought as eco-feminism are a testament to this.

However, its the link between feminism and Islam that is the most interesting. It is the glue that holds the entire alliance together. This link is based on multiculturalism and simple convenience (they have the same enemies, namely straight Western men). Regardless of the reason we know its real. This is why feminists protested the American invasion of Afghanistan despite the fact that it would and did improve the status of women in Afghanistan. This is why homosexuals protest for Palestinian statehood despite the fact that if any of these homosexuals were in Palestine or any other Islamic country they would be executed on the spot.

The link between feminism and Islam goes deeper. I have asked the question in the past, “What is the difference between burkas and sexual harassment suits?” On its face its an absurd question, but not if you think about it. What is the net effect of sexual harassment laws, policies, and suits? To make men avert their eyes and not look at women (or at least the men a particular woman doesn’t find attractive). What does the burka do? It prevents men from looking at women. They are almost the same!

Why are any of these groups allied at all? It’s because they have some sort of problem with current technological civilization. Jihadists hate technology because it undermines their ability to keep other Muslims in line and because they want to keep their 7th century world intact. (Dark green) Environmentalists hate technology because they worship the environment. Socialists and communists hate technology because its empowers individuals and thus its too libertarian for them. Fascists hate technology for a similar reason. Feminists hate technology because it (for the most part) empowers men. After all this is why feminists refer to Newton’s Principia Mathematica as a rape manual.

This is why this blog exists. It’s because technology will continue to liberate men now and in the future. Things like sex bots and artificial wombs may seem like fantasies now, but so would DNA testing 50 years ago.

In subsequent posts in this series I will write about specific topics relating to the Alliance such as how strong the links in the Alliance are, various examples of the alliance in action, and the Alliance’s coming total defeat.